Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning & Development Services

 

TO:

David L. Corliss,  City Manager

 

FROM:

Planning & Development Services Staff

 

 

Date:

March 19, 2014

 

RE:

Rental Expansion

 

 

Consideration of developing a new rental license and inspection program has been years in the making.  The history and contents of the five most recent drafts of Ordinance No. 8840 is provided at http://www.lawrenceks.org/pds/rental-registration-expansion-proposal.

 

Subsequent to staff’s February 26, 2014 memorandum outlining Commissioner Farmer’s proposed Draft 4 of Ordinance No. 8840, Commissioner Farmer asked staff to draft a 5th version to re-instate the RS zoned properties into the program and schedule several “pilot” inspections with property owners he had identified as willing participants. The “pilot” inspections were to be completed using the proposed Draft 4 code standards and the revised Inspection Form and Checklist (dated 2/26/2014).  

 

Below is the summary of the five inspections completed on March 11th and March 12th.

 

Inspection 1

Type of Structure: A two story single detached dwelling unit built in 1900 with 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and an uninhabitable rock foundation basement. 

 

Duration of Inspection: 37 minutes

 

Violations Cited Under Draft 4 Ordinance:

 

  1. 6-13a14(a)(2): (north exterior foundation) Wall has several areas of loose rock and openings within the wall needing repair. 
  2. 6-13a14(a)(4): (2nd flight of interior stairs)  Install handrail on west wall of stairs.

·         The basement stairs would require a handrail; however, the configuration of stairs makes this requirement impractical to complete.

  1. 6-13a14(a)(13): (basement) Install T & P relief valve drain pipe on water heater that must terminate within 6 inches of floor.
  2. 6-13a14(a)(19): (2nd floor bathroom) Install GFCI protected duplex outlet and disconnect receptacle located within the light fixture.
  3. 6-13a14(a)(19): (kitchen) The GFCI on the right side of the sink does not trip.  Must repair or replace.
  4. 6-13a14(a)(20): (2nd floor west bedroom) Replace the damaged receptacle on the south wall.
  5. 6-13a14(a)(23): (basement) Install a smoke detector.

 

In addition to above cited violations, staff noted the following violations of the Property Maintenance Code.

 

  1. 304.1, 304.5: (west interior side of the foundation wall)  There is a large vertical crack on the interior side of the foundation wall that must be repaired.
  2. 605.1, 605.2: (northeast bedroom) The ceiling fan must be securely fastened to the ceiling.
  3. 605.2:  (northeast bedroom) The room only has one receptacle.  One additional receptacle must be installed.

 

Inspections 2 & 3

Type of Structure: A one story duplex built in 1977 on a slab foundation.  Each dwelling unit had 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom.

 

Duration of Inspection: 10 minutes for entire structure

 

Violations Cited Under Draft 4 Ordinance:

 

  1. 6-13a14(a)(19): (each kitchen had one violation) One (middle) GFCI on the kitchen countertop does not trip.  Must repair or replace.

 

Inspection 4 

Type of Structure:  A detached two story built in 1910 containing one dwelling unit with 3 bedrooms, 1 bathroom and a stone foundation.

 

Duration of Inspection: 33 minutes

 

Violations Cited Under Draft 4 Ordinance:

                                                                                       

1.    6-13a14(a)(22): (first floor bedroom) None of the windows were operable. Any window, not fixed, must be easily openable.

2.    6-13a14(a)(24): (first floor bedroom) Smoke detector missing battery.

3.    6-13a14(a)(22): (second floor east bedroom) None of the windows were operable. Any window, not fixed, must be easily openable.

4.    6-13a14(a)(2): (rear porch) The porch is supported by slabs of limestone.  The supports have no footings and the slabs at north corner are sloping significantly away from the porch.

 

In addition to above cited violations, staff noted the following violations of the Property Maintenance Code.

 

5.    Section 302.10 (exterior yard) In the rear yard is an empty keg, a dilapidated foosball table and a large painted piece of plywood that must be removed.

 

Inspection 5

Type of Structure: A 1-˝ story detached dwelling built in 1920 containing one dwelling unit with 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms on a stone/brick foundation.

 

Duration of Inspection: 34 minutes

 

Violations Cited:

 

1.    6-13a14(a)(24): (first floor bedroom) Missing smoke detector.

2.    6-13a14(a)(24): (first floor bedroom) Missing smoke detector.

3.    6-13a14(a)(24): (first floor bedroom) Missing smoke detector.

4.    6-13a14(a)(20): First floor - living room (north wall) –– Missing receptacle cover plate.

5.    6-13a14(a)(4):  (second floor porch roof) There is a door that leads out to the roof of the first floor enclosed porch.  The door has been installed at some point to provide access.  The guard rail is unsafe due to lack of vertical balusters and adequate support for posts. There are large openings due to there being  two horizontal boards acting as guard rails around the perimeter of the roof.  I Informed the owner the minimum requirement would be to rebuild guardrails and add code compliant balusters for the terrace to be used.  Another option would be to remove the door thus eliminating the use.  A major life safety concern.   

6.    6-13a14(a)(4) (second floor staircase) –– The guard rail around the stair case opening on the second floor is only 24 inches high.  Informed the owner that the guard rail must be code compliant with appropriate vertical balusters.

  1. 6-13a14(a)(18): (roof top porch) Receptacle on east wall of house is not secured to wall. 

 

In addition to above cited violations, staff noted the following violations of the Property Maintenance Code.

 

8.    Section 304.5 of PMC:  (basement) There is a large horizontal crack just above half way point of height of the wall that runs east to west along the south wall.  The crack is the result of the wall beginning to show movement.  Eventually, appropriate repairs will be required to provide additional support and prevent additional movement/buckling.

9.    Section 603.1 of PMC:  (basement) There is a listed appliance connector penetrating the floor assembly to provide gas to the stove.  The connector has not been tested for this application therefore it cannot go through the floor assembly.

 

Pilot Program Statistics and Findings

  1. Avg. no. of Ordinance 8840 violations – 4
  2. Avg. no. of Property Maintenance Code violations – 1.4
  3. Avg. time per inspection – 23 minutes
  4. Properties 2, 3, and 4 would be eligible for the incentive program based on the number of violations found.  Properties 1 and 5 would not be eligible for the incentive program based on the number of violations found.

 

As previously discussed in other memorandums; the type, size and age of a structure will significantly impact the time it will take to inspect a dwelling unit.  A single detached structure that has never been inspected will most likely require staff to spend a minimum of 30 minutes to complete the inspection.  A duplex or apartments within a building that are in good condition may only require a 10 to 15 minute inspection per unit.  A very large congregate living structure could take an hour to complete.

 

The “pilot” inspection results confirm staff’s previous estimates on how much time certain types of structures will require on their initial inspection.   The three detached dwelling units inspected were built in the early 1900’s and took an average of 35 minutes to inspect. In contrast, the duplex which was viewed to be in the top 5% of all dwelling units staff has previously inspected took only 5 minutes per side for a total of 10 minutes.  Staff believes the sampling of future dwelling units in the proposed ordinance will produce similar inspection time variances. The “pilot” inspections yielded an average inspection time of 23 minutes. As noted above, the duplex considerably reduced the overall average time required to complete the 5 inspections.

 

In addition to the amount of time required to complete an inspection, there will be time needed to enter the results of the inspection in Innoprise.  It is estimated that an inspection with an average of 5 violations will take approximately 15 minutes to enter the results.

 

Drive time must also be accounted for and can vary significantly due to location of next inspection.  Staff currently attempts to schedule inspections in close proximity to each other when possible.  

 

For a first time inspection involving a detached dwelling unit, staff approximates a total of 1 hour to complete the process.  Given this, staff’s assumption of being able to complete 5 inspections per day (1150 per year) is reasonable.

 

Commissioner Riordan Request

On February 25, 2014, Commissioner Riordan requested that staff contact other municipalities that enforce a rental licensing/inspection program in order to obtain information on how other municipalities regulate their programs. Commissioner Riordan provided staff a list of 10 suggested questions and an eleventh question was added by staff. Staff provided a memorandum for review on March 13, 2014 which was posted at http://www.lawrenceks.org/pds/rental-registration-expansion-proposal.

 

Public Meeting of March 13, 2014

A public meeting was conducted on March 13, 2014 to explain Draft 4 and receive public comment.  Four of the five Commissioners were in attendance and about 55 audience members were present.  Comments were mixed as to the need for the city-wide program.  Primary issues presented by the audience on Draft 4 specifically included educating the tenants as to the consent form process, making the housing standards clear, and a desire to incorporate RS properties into the program.

 

Staff believes Draft 5, published a day after the public meeting, addresses all of these matters.

 

Draft 5

Draft 5 is essentially Draft 4 but with the incorporation of RS zoned properties.  The following packet is a comprehensive packet of the ordinance, administrative regulations, and all its attachments that could be adopted by the City Commission to implement the program.

 

Draft 5 packet:

 

·         Ordinance No. 8840

·         Administrative Regulations

·         Inspection Form

·         Inspection Guide

·         Consent Form

·         Rental License Application

·         Rental License

·         Education Material for Tenants

 

Other Considerations

The current proposal groups multiple properties owned by one owner (individual, LLC, etc.) as one entity for the purpose of inspection sampling.  One issue that has surfaced is how to process licenses where one owner may own multiple properties under different LLCs.  Because of the tiered fee schedule and sampling size based on ownership, there are different outcomes depending on how the Commission desires staff to view this matter.

 

The outcomes, by example, of either allowing multiple units owned by separate LLCs under one license or requiring separate licenses for each LLC – are as follows:

 

  1. Owner owns 10 units total (5 LLCs each own 2 units):
    1. Allow multiple LLCs under one license – 1 inspection performed and one fee collected.  10% of units inspected.
    2. Require separate licenses per LLC – 5 inspections performed and 5 fees collected since 1 inspection is required of each ownership.  50% of units inspected.
  2. Owner owns 100 units (2 LLCs each own 50 units):
    1. Allow multiple LLCs under one license – 10 inspection performed and ten fees collected.  10% of units inspected.
    2. Require separate licenses per LLC – 10 inspections performed and 10 fees collected since 5 inspections are required of each ownership. 10% of units inspected.
  3. Owner owns several large complexes under 5 LLCs – 1500 units total (300 per LLC)
    1. Allow multiple LLCs under one license – 15 inspections performed and 15 fees collected – 15 unit max inspection cap per ord.  Equals 1% of units inspected for under this scenario.
    2. Require separate licenses per LLC – 75 inspections performed and 75 fees collected – 15 unit max inspection cap per ord. per ownership yields equals 5% of units inspected for each ownership and the total.

 

Sampling was originally intended to be applied only to large complexes where a sampling would provide a good measure of how a specific location was being maintained. In reaction to stakeholder input, the idea was expanded to ownership regardless of size of complex or location. Staff assumes that many times different partners will own different LLCs and so establishing a primary owner would be an arduous task for staff to complete.  Also, the task of tracking this issue from a staff viewpoint, given that properties sell and corporation names can change frequently could lead to confusion and record keeping errors.  It is much more efficient to view each LLC as a separate owner for tracking purposes.  Staff recommends that separate LLCs be counted separately for the purposes of implementing Ordinance No. 8840.

 

Action Requested

Adopt Ordinance 8840 and the Administrative Regulations, if appropriate.